Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-11-22
ARNOLD SUES FOR LIBEL.
He Charges Major Walker with Ac-
cusing Him Falsely.
AN ACTION BEGUN AGAINST THE Ex -suPERryrEypRN1
OF POLICE FoR $4,000 DAMAGKs-rHE POLICE
SCANDAL OF A YEAR AGO REVIVED

AN ACTION BEGUN AGAINST THE Ex-suPERrSrEypRN1
OF POLICE PoR $4,000 DAaAGKs-THE POLICE
SCANDAL OF YEAR AGO REVIVED.
A suit entered yesterday by Richard A. Arnold
formerly Lieutenant OF police. for damages for ube
against Samuel Ii. Walker, ex-superintendent Of
police. revives the police scandal which caused o
sensation last November. At that time as the
result OF the trial by the District Commissioners
OF charges preferred by Mr.. Walker, then major Of
police, against Lieut.. Arnold. the Commissioners
aeeep.eo MAJOR walkers resignation. dismissed
Arnold and inflicted penalties upon other officers
VINO were involved In various ways In the trouble.
AT the close OF the trial Major walker
gave out for publication letter he had
| addressed TO the District Commissioners
Vn.Hhins various statements rejecting upon
Lieut.. Arnold and ex-Detective McDevitt. These
| charges were denied by McDevitt and Arnold. The
sleged hoel for which suit was entered yester-
day was contained in that letter. After Lieut..
| Arnolds dismissal public mass-mr eting was
| held 10 protest against the injustice which his
friends claimed had been done HIM, and there was
strong demonstration In his favor. Lieut..
| Arm ID had an excellent record as an officer and
! the popular esteem In which he was held was
meeting called TO protest against the action in his
| case since that time efforts have been continued
ny Leut. Arnolds friends to secure his reinstate-
| hehI on the police force, and these efforts have
been pushed with some vigor ON account. as IL Is
soaten, OF tne discovery OF new evidence tending
10 strengthen the belief OF his friends that
| innocent Oh the charges preferred against him.
$4,000 DAMAGES CLAIMED.
In the suit brought yesterday by Lieut.. Arnold
through his attorneys Messrs. Shellabarger &
Wilson, S. s. Henkle, Henry Wise Garnett and Eu-
gene r Arnold, damages are claimed in the sum
VI sJoOOO The Dill sets forth the seventeen We rs
| OF Arnold's faithful service on the police force
during which he "had enjoyed the respect, es-
Ne anu commence OF his associates as well as OF
/ November, 1856, Major Walker had preferred
charges, which The bill characterizes as 'ialse and
I nll.lV ma An
been mad. by the Commissioners when the wrongs
\ now complained OF were committed. The bill then
endrges tnaa Inc defendant did falsely, Wlckedy
anu maliclously compose, print and publish, and
cause and procure 10 be printed and published in
nne washington Critic certain false, scandalous;
malclouS and defamatOry libel" Then the full
| text OF the alleged libelous letter is set out.
| THE LETTER.
The letter, which was dated November "a. 1886,
ana addressed TO the District Commissioners,
stated tnat the investigation OF the charges pre-
| ferred against Lieut.. Arnold had brought to the
surface facts pointing to other parties being
ISOLATED with him in an attempt TO break up the
| discipline and government OF the police force In
| the District OF Columbia and to reflect dishonor
ana dlscredit upon yourselves" The letter then
states That the Inauguration OF this attempt dated
back 10 the administration or Mr. Walkers prede-
cessor, and that since the Old detective force
ltglSlateu out or existence, one OF the number
| James A. McDevitt-has been 'using all means
lair ana foul, ito bring about the reinstatement OF
himself and that In the persons OF ex-Detectives
Block and Edelin, and others, McDevttt found will
ing tools 10 assist in the accomplishment of his
purpose" The letter stated that system OF es-
pIonage, threats and annoyance was begun as soon
as II was discovered that he (Walker would not re-
| lnstate McDevitt, but that 1t impossible to
comply with the request for the reinstatement
lions necessary We're found to be
against SUCH action. Mr. Walker quotes
an anonymous letter received by him about the
first week in september, 1856 which informed him
That II would be useless TO appeal to Congressman
| 10 have laws enacted TO carry out his (Walker's)
particular Ideas ..two-thirds OF the members OF
men." Then the letter stated that the Commission
ers on the second morning after the receipt OF the
above letter, also received an anonymous letter in
tht same handwriting, land In when the same
phrases were used respecting members Of Con-
gresS. Mr.. Walker further calls attention to the
fact that the letter received by him preceded by
nearly month any conversation which might
have occurred with the lieutenaDts on the morn
ing cited In the trial, and am satisfied" he went
on, "that McDevitt mad Lieut. Arnold, who, 1t has
been shown, was one OF the first To refer TO the
nnding OF members OF Congress in houses OF ILL.,
Ialne speak OF this matter In the presence OF the
Heutenants, and then, after the conversation had
almost passed out OF their recollection go the
President and make his statement. The substance
of the letters and the subject or Lieut. ArnOlds ad
dress on the morning before the lieutenants pos
seSs striking Similarity
continuing, MI. walker says that In view OF his
suspicious as 10 the character OF the party who
had written these letters, and being aware OF the
A McDevitt and one Flinders az tine 10Th street
station, and having had frequent complaints from
officers that business which should have been sent
corps was turned over to McDevitt and Flinders,
and that Arnold and McDeyitt were In the habit
OF working up cases together, he tWalkep repeated
ly called ArnOlds attention to these circumstances
% fnsse sxe nnSa Sad int The
winch he was trying TO work up The letter then
quotes the contents OF another anonymous postal
card and states that all the letters received were
examined by experts, and at was declared without
question that they were all In the handwriting Of
James A. NcDevitt, showing the ahimuS OF that
gentleman and his association with Lieut.. Arnold
rpF.ra al a tpIfpa md
honor OF the department., and you ascertatned at
tine time that the same man, McDeviIt, the author
OF the above anonym communications, was the
nrst person 10 approach the Executive mansion
with a malicious falsehOOd, which, in all its
phases, Was repeated almost identcally as written
by him In his threatening communications OF the
month before
The letter adds: ~ doubt not that Arnold was
fiattered by McDevitt and others in his ambition
OF becoming the head OF the department, or, TAX.
ing charitable view, 1t might appear that he was
the victim OF misplaced confidence"
In conclusion, MT. Walker says: "As to the pro-
prlety OF my asking the leutenant5 TO make
| friends with members TO the end that needed
police legislation might be had 1t has always Teen
no departure from custom"
| An INJURY TO HIS GOOD NAME.
By reason OF this publication the bill declares In
due legal form the plaintiff has been and Is greatly
| injured in his good name fame and credit, and
brought into public scandal, infamy and disgrace,
| and mas been prevented from obtaining employ
ment. The second count OF the bill seLs out Ian.
guage OF the letter deemed noelous, and charges
1 that the defendant CAUSED and procured II
| 10 he printed and punished No news
paper Is named in this count, which is
! Intended To cover the general publication
\ given TO Maj. Walkers charges. The third count
| charges the defendant win composing, writing,
| and printing &C., certain other false, scandal
| Gus, malicious, and defamatory libel" which
| alleged libel Il contained In the charges made by
n IJor Walker aga nst Arnold 10 the District Com
In.ssonera, November $. 1856 These are the
| charges on which Arnold was tried, and were TO
the effect that Arnold had circulated a false report
that Mai. Walker mad 'ordered the Iieutenants to
| watch members OF Congress- note their habits,
| &C., In order 10 have them under his thumb TO
| control legislation"